So, part of the IWDC stand-up is developing an organizational structure and curriculum to develop Warfare Tactic Instructors (WTI) that are identified as SMEs in the different IW Mission Areas. Details are still being worked out but the intent would be to have 6-8 year LTs nominated by their CO's to attend an IW Community-specific WTI Course (think TOPGUN for IW Officer's) with follow-on's to designated billets (IWTG, IWDC, IWTC, etc.) to teach advanced TTPs; graduates would also support CCDR/#FLT short-term requirements as well. So to develop course curriculum, target audience, length, etc. we need to identify the WTI areas for each IW Community. For example, Intel is considering platform-based SMEs(Afloat, NSW, Aviation). My question is: How should the CW community develop these WTI SMEs? By mission area (SIGINT, Cyber, EW)? By platform (Surface, Subsurface, Air, NSW, Cyber)? Holistically (One CW uber SME)?

look at our afloat/fleet numbers - you have to build SMEs who are experienced and comfortable with ALL aspects of our community. they have to know sigint, ew (some feel this isn't necessarily 1810 territory), and cyber, as they will in most cases be the single person synthesizing everything (like the DIWC on an amphib staff). so - you need an uber SME (which our career path does not produce because there is FAR, FAR too much content to fit into a 6-8 year LT). doing it by mission area is way too narrow a perspective which doesn't provide sufficient breadth of knowledge to the group - not even close. based on what I read, are we looking at 6-8 year LTs to teach "advanced TTPs" (IW)? They are no Jester and/or Viper (who had a lot of experience using and perfecting the tactics they taught).

Just as importantly, you absolutely MUST produce WTIs who can teach to specific platform(s) capabilities. teaching CW/IW stuff in a platform agnostic manner is just theory which doesn't specifically match their tools. It's like expecting someone to be able to fly an f-18 without ever having been in platform just because the principles of flight are the same. sure, CW principles are the same, but aren't there some differences (across comms, systems, amphib vs csg operations, networks, group capabilities, primary missions, etc, etc)? So, in addition to a holistic development, you also need to develop CW WTIs by platform.

I am hopeful, but concerned, about doing justice to this effort. we do not develop our officers in a way which provides 1) sufficient Fleet operational experiences and 2) tactical understanding across all our mission areas. we have officer who don't see cyber until O4/5 and officers who don't see the Fleet until they are in charge of something on a staff. we don't have career tracks which provide for developmental experiences necessary to meaningfully and adequately contribute in pace and quantity with other warfare areas. Our involvement in the fleet is also pretty confined to our lane (sses divo, crc only) and rarely has visibility outside our spaces. we need to make community changes - many which have been discussed over the past several years, none likely forthcoming - to make a properly functioning, worthwhile contribution to something like IWDC/WTI. if we don't make changes, perhaps we should use all LDOs for IWDC.

- We aren't building officers specifically to become WTIs, so worrying about the fact that our officer development pipelines don't produce a plethora of people who fit that model shouldn't concern us. Once criteria are settled on, some people will have the right set of experiences and (hopefully) the right depth of knowledge (or can develop it), and most won't.

- An "uber SME" seems a lot like an "uber solution" that's completely impractical. That's not how other services run their WTI programs. No one can become an expert in everything, so it'll take people focusing on individual skillsets to develop the depth of knowledge necessary to benefit the service.

- The biggest issue is how to define duties/functions/platforms/weapons systems/bodies of knowledge we want to concentrate on. Not an easy nut to crack. All the solutions posed so far have serious issues, unless we acknowledge that perhaps we need to use a model that selects people with deep knowledge of one mission area and teach them the breadth and depth of the others so that they can be relevant across the community. A buddy of mine went to the Air Force's WTI school/program (and graduated) as an Air Force cyber guy. He did all the same stuff the conventional arms guys did, but then had to shine and develop his cyber expertise to a completely new level. It was just expected that he would struggle in some of the areas he was less familiar with while excelling in the cyber stuff. Oh, and his course was something like 6+ months of six-day, 12+ hour workdays.

What do you want these guys/gals to actually do? Develop new TTPs? Teach? Write doctrine/strategy? All of the above? Where do we need the expertise/where do we struggle? Should we prioritize the requirements?

Worked with a WTI grad from the first AMW class and was able to take a look at what they were studying. They know MUCH more about our stuff (C5I, comms, intel) than we know about theirs; they are all over the IDC talking points (C2, BA, IF). Makes sense - what community in the Navy doesn't focus on those three things? We have specific areas of privileged knowledge, but they are few, often not center stage. The value we bring isn't a material knowledge or skill advantage. The value we (should) bring is fitting it into their world and modulating it in concert with their efforts. One could easily surmise knowledge of "their" world is at least as important as anything else.

Concur on sending the best and brightest, but only if we understand the community's desired end state. Until then, we're probably most likely to throw sevens. I submit we haven't figured end state out, which is understandable given this thing came about via URL direction (ADM Gortney announced IWDC at NCF/IFOR in 2014). IWDC concept can't be executed without full and equal participation from all IW communities. The last several years have not seen a trend toward the communities becoming the role players the Navy needs. They must: get appropriately involved, commit the level of effort needed to actively represent their community's interests; be less impressed with their individual efforts, more fascinated with their appropriate role on the larger team.

The IW WTI program is still in the crawl phase but the overall plan is to mirror the SMWDC(and other WTI programs) and select the best and brightest IW officers using a CO's recommendation, FITREPs, etc. (specific criteria TBD) for the WTI program. The WTI curriculum will/should (curriculum not yet developed) include advanced instruction in your chosen mission area to include integration of mission area within the big 3 warfighting areas that COMEVIL mentions above. I also assume that integration of EA, Cyber, SIGINT, etc. within the big 3 will be stressed throughout the course. Also the development of a WTI program and subsequent production tours could also change the way the IW community promotes/details in the future. If done correctly this should be a great opportunity for future IW officers.

What are the subsequent production tours envisioned by the community? What is leadership planning to protect our best and brightest who go this route from the negative consequences of not following the path (because it doesn't)? Why does 1810 not have a CAPT representing (now) in the IWDC? What does the community - not just the Fleet - want to build in a WTI? Answering these questions now - not making it up as we go - changes "should be a great opportunity..." to "WILL be a great opportunity for future IW officers" (not to mention best for the Navy). It can't be IFOR's problem to solve and not ours. We've known the IWDC was coming for three years now - what steps did we take to address/prepare at the CAPT level?

yoshi wrote:They know MUCH more about our stuff (C5I, comms, intel) than we know about theirs; they are all over the IDC talking points (C2, BA, IF). Makes sense - what community in the Navy doesn't focus on those three things?

These three pillars are start points. We can neatly bin everything we do underneath them, all the way down to the TTP level. Sure, every community touches on these. But we need to be seen as the experts.

yoshi wrote:What are the subsequent production tours envisioned by the community? What is leadership planning to protect our best and brightest who go this route from the negative consequences of not following the path (because it doesn't)? Why does 1810 not have a CAPT representing (now) in the IWDC? What does the community - not just the Fleet - want to build in a WTI? Answering these questions now - not making it up as we go - changes "should be a great opportunity..." to "WILL be a great opportunity for future IW officers" (not to mention best for the Navy). It can't be IFOR's problem to solve and not ours. We've known the IWDC was coming for three years now - what steps did we take to address/prepare at the CAPT level?

I think you have a valid point. And I suspect much of what was established recently was simply based on who is available now. So no, I don't think we have invested like we should yet. Hopefully, that will come. I'd personally love to one of these jobs! What a great way to give back to the community and build its relevance into the future.

Forgive me for this next paragraph, I have a hard time with our portfolio verbiage. We have struggled SO MUCH to articulate what it is we do, the specific areas in which we are the primary operators.Indeed, "...we need to be seen as the experts" and what we bring/do right now doesn't sufficiently differentiate us as experts upon whom the other communities should rely. But, experts at what - at C2? At BA? At IF? Does it read as ridiculous as it sounds in my mind? Every community's TTPs clearly fit under C2, BA, and IF. Literally since Napoleon, they've been components of every type of warfare. We aren't solely responsible for C2, BA, IF; won't ever be (nor should we). Hard to be recognized as THE experts in something for which we do not and will not maintain sole responsibility. For warfare (area) purposes, we (and they) need something more specific which concisely conveys value to the commander, ie - electronic warfare, cyber warfare, etc. Could even go a level deeper - EA, EP, OCO, DCO, etc. Need something less abstract which can be modified, tailored to the commander's purpose, measured, and specifically improved. Recommend a group of fleet concentration O4/O5s (IW and non-IW) fix this.

On investment:First, we need to answer the questions related to our people and their participation in IWDC/WTI/etc. We owe that to our people. Second is investment. Anyone remember leadership saying things like they were "all in" behind the establishment of IFOR? That was over three years ago, and it hasn't been true. Intel and IP have both produced Flag officers from the COS job there in the past three years; they were more heavily invested all along. Meanwhile, the 1810 community continues fighting to stay away, hell bent on indigenous efforts, viewing operations as teamwork's escape hatch, believing in the superior importance of its efforts in MD. IFOR is a place cryppie officers go to retire, and that has to change if IWDC/WTI is ever going to be of value to the Navy. Even if the 1810 community is wildly successful in MD, it becomes irrelevant to the fleet over time, as other communities step to fill our lack of presence (such as the aviation community in the FEWC), for better or worse. I would absolutely love to take one of the jobs in IWDC also, but that is not a direction the community wishes its officers to go, judging by every visible indicator. Investment takes time, but it's been over three years which is enough time for a FULL CYCLE of all our CAPTs and CDRs to turn over every job. Where are they?? I don't see any investment or attempt to influence IFOR/IWDC/IWC/DIWC, and I'm unable to defend such unwillingness and misrepresentation over time.

Similarly, the O6 IWC role and the O5 DIWC roles aren't exactly coveted by the community. For those looking for O6, that's your third option behind CO and XO. How far away from the rest of the IWC/Navy does the 1810 community plan on travelling before its role in the Navy is marginalized? Doesn't matter how important the 1810 community believes its efforts and value to be. They will never trump perception and trust (presence matters). This is why we now have IFOR, IWDC, all designators as IWCs, etc. The Fleet is fixing those areas for which 1810s were previously, and should now be, responsible. It's just getting done without 1810s.

yoshi wrote:Forgive me for this next paragraph, I have a hard time with our portfolio verbiage. We have struggled SO MUCH to articulate what it is we do, the specific areas in which we are the primary operators.Indeed, "...we need to be seen as the experts" and what we bring/do right now doesn't sufficiently differentiate us as experts upon whom the other communities should rely. But, experts at what - at C2? At BA? At IF? Does it read as ridiculous as it sounds in my mind? Every community's TTPs clearly fit under C2, BA, and IF. Literally since Napoleon, they've been components of every type of warfare. We aren't solely responsible for C2, BA, IF; won't ever be (nor should we). Hard to be recognized as THE experts in something for which we do not and will not maintain sole responsibility. For warfare (area) purposes, we (and they) need something more specific which concisely conveys value to the commander, ie - electronic warfare, cyber warfare, etc. Could even go a level deeper - EA, EP, OCO, DCO, etc. Need something less abstract which can be modified, tailored to the commander's purpose, measured, and specifically improved. Recommend a group of fleet concentration O4/O5s (IW and non-IW) fix this.

Partially concur. The portfolio is what we are stuck with, and I wouldn't advocate changing it. (We keep changing way to much and look lost!) I don't necessarily agree with your premise either that everyone does Assured C2, BA, etc. While they use/leverage those areas, they aren't necessarily producers. And given the complexity of technology these days, those other communities simply can't "own" those areas and fight in their own. We we could use is a better "story" about what we do in those areas and how they support other warfare areas. So yes, we should be more specific.